Trading places.

Elissa Strauss at The Week is distressed by a recent Chanel No. 5 extended commercial.  Strauss is troubled that “having it all” has gone terribly wrong.  In the commercial the wife is the new husband, surfing powerful waves while her unhaaaapy husband (the new wife) frets over his unhappiness.  He decides to follow his heart and she has to give chase.  They don’t come right out and say it but I’m pretty sure it ends with the wife having to do a 40 day “dare” to prove her love and win his heart back from a sexy nurse:

Clearly the only thing more frightening to feminists than not getting what they demand is actually getting it.

This entry was posted in Feminists, Foolishness. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Trading places.

  1. Reminds me of one of my favorite movie villain quotes: “I’m just a dog chasing cars. I wouldn’t know what to do with one if I caught it.”

  2. Pingback: Trading places. | Manosphere.com

  3. Femertilizer says:

    That is one dumb-ass commercial. Who is going to empathize with the supermodel’s problems? I’m too rich, too pretty, and my life is too fabulous…
    Also I lack self-esteem.

  4. LC says:

    You can always count on a perfume commercial to be absolutely stupid, meaningless, and dumb. I used to like that perfume, but that commercial really turned me off to it. The good news is that you don’t have to buy products from companies that make stupid videos like this.

  5. Honeycomb says:

    Dal ..
    “Clearly the only thing more frightening to feminists than not getting what they demand is actually getting it.”

    I don’t think, even then, will they actually take accountability / responsibility of their actions when they get 100% control. It will still be a man’s fault.

    And, no, I don’t believe that women see this commercial correctly (ie like you did). Just sayin’

  6. earl says:

    “Clearly the only thing more frightening to feminists than not getting what they demand is actually getting it.”

    After Eve ate the apple her eyes were opened.

  7. zykos says:

    I see a different dynamic at play that explains Strauss’ whining. It’s the same one that makes feminist cry about objectification at every corner:

    When a man sees another man who is more attractive, more wealthy or has a higher status than him, he wants to become that man. When a woman sees a younger, prettier or more successful woman than her, she wants to take her down and change the world so that she is the one seen as more desirable.

    We know this is because what matters in men can only be gained through hard work, while what matters in women can only be lost with time. Strauss is just pissed at the suggestion we should sympathize with a woman who is much better than her.

  8. Zelcorpion says:

    First of all – Giselle Bundchen is starting to hit the wall and it shows even in this highly filtered version. Her model husband could easily upgrade, if he could not stand his wife.

    And of course the blatant idiocy is that such a guy would be “bored” for staying mostly home in his multi-million-dollar home and raising her daughter. Supposedly he was not haaaappy, because she was working a lot and not spending much time with him? That is not how men work mentally. If we can get some quality time in with our girl, we can find plenty of things to do to be happy and content. Getting more or less useful hobbies or interests is what we can do a lot better than women. If the time spent together is loving and meaningful, then it does not matter if we see each other 3 times a week. There are plenty of super-happy marriages by pilots and seasonal workers.

    I guess they are turning things around to make female behavior appear more accomodating for all those unhappy super-rich women, whose husbands are “emotionally distant”. The female commercial would run a different tune in which the husband would find divorce papers in the letter and the daughter would be gone.

  9. earl says:

    “When a man sees another man who is more attractive, more wealthy or has a higher status than him, he wants to become that man. When a woman sees a younger, prettier or more successful woman than her, she wants to take her down and change the world so that she is the one seen as more desirable.”

    This right here is the difference between the patriarchy and equality.

  10. Bluepillprofessor says:

    They always want to tear down the successful rather than build up the failures don’t they, Earl?

    I wonder if this is ideological or a true gender difference. Feminism IS Marxism in panties after all.

  11. earl says:

    “I wonder if this is ideological or a true gender difference.”

    It’s the combo of pride and envy…which is in both genders. But for women envy is a more prevelant sin.

  12. Morgan says:

    While the article hits the nail on the head, that having it all is an individualistic, selfish, and unattainable goal, it fails to recognize why that is. No one has ever been able to have it all ( on their own ), that’s why the genders paired up and split responsibility. It just happened that women’s natures were better suited to nurturing the home environment, while men’s were suited to the cut throat work environment. There is still an option for the modern woman to have it all, share that responsibility with a man, and stop expecting to do it all on her own. You don’t see men expecting to do it all as a single dad and successful business man, because they expect to marry a woman capable of upholding her end of the bargain.

  13. desiderian says:

    “That is one dumb-ass commercial. Who is going to empathize with the supermodel’s problems? I’m too rich, too pretty, and my life is too fabulous…
    Also I lack self-esteem.”

    95% of women.

    The theme of the commercial is women having second thoughts about abandoning their femininity (not many women surf, none do so alone) and becoming too masculine. They’re noticing that men have noticed and are “going our own way,” to coin a phrase, when they do so.

  14. desiderian says:

    The Grease number is ingenuous, especially made this unrecognizable. It subliminally taps into the memory of the typical woman who can afford Chanel for a time when she was a teenie-bopper and much more feminine than she has likely become.

  15. Dave says:

    Feminism is as insatiable as hell. No matter how much concessions the society gives to this bottomless pit, it will never be satisfied.

  16. So interesting… Karl Lagerfeld (the head designer/creative director for Chanel) has been doing some strange things with about feminism (there was a parade maybe a week or two ago in Paris, put on by him and a bunch of contributing models). The parade was so strange… I’m still not certain if he was supporting feminism or mocking it… it seems like he was more mocking it (and he is definitely not known for caring what the world thinks about his opinions, or being “politically correct” on controversial topics).

    I love Gisele (the model in this video)… I’m sure feminists would be outraged at the message of the song, as many were at Karl’s “feminists” parade. ????

    Typically, feminists don’t like beauty, make-up, and seem to despise models (unless they’re plus-sized… then that kind of beauty is “ok”). They resent the fashion industry for making women feel like they need to be beautiful or take care of themselves, or simply keep their weight at an attractive level.

  17. RogueHermes says:

    It occurs to me that advertising is the last medium in the west, other than blogs like this one, that consistently tells the truth about people.

    There’s no way to sell someone smelly water at $300 an ounce, but of course you can sell the identity and life experiences that smelly water represents. Advertisers know how to manipulate the ego, to harness desire, exploit narcissism–all of which are impossible to people with no stomach for red pills. Advertising seems to be the dark-triadiest of all industries.

    The woman in the ad has everything that an American woman wants, and is everything she’s been taught to believe she is. That’s not the selling point, though; what sells the narrative is the fact that she’s the masculine one. Not physically, of course, but she possesses the masculine gifts and virtues. The point at which the target demographic is truly sold is the moment when she puts together the fact that this woman is the man in her relationship; that her man is sitting home waiting–like a woman. Unhappy with unearned-yet-somehow-deserved-yet-unappreciated luxury–like a woman. He’s envious of her effect on the world, her life of adventure. Like a woman.

    Shame that they go through all the trouble with the glamor, glitz, pretty lighting and money spent, all to say what my grandfather could have told them with a Pall Mall hanging on his lip, reeling new line into his reel:

    “Ladies sure do seem to want to be men nowadays.”

    I can’t help but laugh.

  18. John says:

    Well, they are getting what they want and more as the status quo has changed forever; there is not turning back the hands of time

  19. Zelcorpion says:

    @girlwithadragonflytattoo

    If Lagerfeld is mocking feminism, he is doing it so subtly that even Jezebel is not getting it:
    http://jezebel.com/chanels-new-chanel-n-5-campaign-is-all-about-having-it-1646567814/all
    http://jezebel.com/karl-lagerfelds-chanel-show-ends-with-co-opted-faux-fem-1640722530

    Never mind 99,99% of the rest of the media who were applauding his take on feminism.

    The reality is that feminism in fashion barely exists – the women are beautiful, the pimping of young girls to rich men going on behind the scenes is excessive as usual and the reality is that beautiful young women and even the former models working in the biz have no reason to join feminism movements. It is such a meeting of extreme hypergamy and narcissism, that there is no place for feminism in reality. They may mock it in private (which I think they do), but no one will be opposing that overtly the sacred cow.

  20. Looking Glass says:

    Giselle Bundchen is actually one of those funny little oddities of the celebrity class. She not only was able to attract an Apex Alpha, but actually married him and has 2 children with him. Super models just don’t have children by accident. Obviously, I know of it being enough of a sports fan, but Giselle is actually something of a thorn to Feminists, as she chose to get out before the Wall hit. (Dated Brady from 26 to 29, married at 29)

  21. Zelcorpion says:

    @Looking Glass

    Marrying Apex Alphas or at least rich Paper-Alphas is what the majority of fashion models are doing. Either that or they become unhappy escorts later on – the few famous ones are the exception.

    Fashion models are true examples of Female Apex-Alphas and Bundchen’s case is not uncommon. If coked-up party-slut Kate Moss had not become highly successful, she would be one of the countless ex-model escorts.

  22. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Finally had a chance to read the linked article. Strauss quotes and affirms the following from a feminist authoress Ruth Rosen

    The belief that you could become a superwoman became a journalistic trope in the 1970s and has never vanished. By 1980, most women’s (self-help) magazines turned a feminist into a Superwoman, hair flying as she rushed around, attaché case in one arm, a baby in the other. The Superwomen could have it all, but only if she did it all. And that was exactly what feminists had not wanted.

    Two things about that struck me.

    1) She flat out says that what feminists wanted (the opposite of the journalistic trope of women doing and having it all) was simply having it all. Doing it all was never part of the serious program.

    2) It is revealing how foolish and lacking in introspection the serious feminists are about women. Of course journalists and marketers developed a trope that women could do and have it all. That’s what women want to read! They don’t just want all the goods commensurate with doing, but all the respect, too. They have always wanted it all.

    One would think feminists had never met a woman.

  23. honeycomb says:

    Along the lines of traditional -v- non-traditional roles .. here is a UK article you should read.

    There is to many pull quotes to share .. so I’ll just start with this paragraph ..

    “Men were clamouring over themselves to be seen as anything but sexist.

    But as we lost our rough edges and took on more of what had traditionally been regarded as female roles, no one really stopped to question whether equality for women came with a cost for masculinity. If everything overtly “masculine” is dismissed as sexist, what’s left of men is, arguably, sexless.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11186150/DIY-is-in-decline-because-todays-men-are-too-soft.html

    “There is an additional benefit in doing DIY: you get more sex. A study by sociologists at the University of Washington found that couples who follow traditional gender roles around the house – wives doing the cooking, cleaning and shopping; men doing the DIY and fettling the car – reported greater sexual frequency.

    So there you have it: with DIY you’re screwed if you do it, and screwed if you don’t.”

  24. Michael says:

    Surfing …. The Sport of Kings.

  25. @Zelcorpion
    @Looking Glass

    “Marrying Apex Alphas or at least rich Paper-Alphas is what the majority of fashion models are doing.” Especially the ones that are not from America… you need to realize that Gisele is I believe, 1/2 German and 1/2 Brazilian, and originially from Brazil. She has totally different values that American women like your Kate Moss (druggie) example. My mom wouldn’t let me model because she was certain I would’ve been drawn into drugs.

    There are a lot of European models though (that you probably don’t know about unless you read “IntoTheGloss” beauty website which goes through and interviews them about their life, values, goals, and of course… the strange beauty products that only they seem to know about). The majority of them you’d be surprised to find that they are virtuous, sweet, kind and so gentle looking… but they are NOT American women usually. It just reminds me that our culture is so messed up – especially for young women.

    A bit of the Super Models from Victoria’s Secret have done what Gisele did (get married young and already start having babies… Adriana Lima, Karolina Kurkova, and Doutzen Kroes, also Miranda Kerr (but she’s American & also got divorced after her son) – some of the most gorgeous women in the world)… in 2010 they were almost all pregnant (so adorable to watch them all get round at the same time), and all of them I think were married at the time and around my age the same time as well. It was so sweet. They have different values… and again, most are not from America… and the one that was, Kerr, got divorced:/ .

  26. This is random lol sorry to be obsessive, but seriously, really listen to Doutzen Kroes in this interview… she is just so different than most self-absorbed American girls/women. Really so sweet and has so much inner beauty.

    How can anyone hate these women?

  27. Zelcorpion says:

    @girlwithadragonflytattoo

    No one “hates” these women here. Very beautiful women are even known to statistically be in more stable and serious relationships than not so pretty ones. There are big statistics according to which girls in the attractiveness of 6 have the highest amount of sexual partners, while the number falls the higher the girl is on the attraction scale. This is also logical since beautiful women can potentially attract most desirable Alpha men for a relationship. A woman’s attraction is based on her ability to pull a man into a LTR, not into her bed. This Doutzen Kroes substantiates that notion – her husband is a good-looking millionaire DJ, who could have his pick among hundreds.

    Again – most girls manage to pull an Alpha for a LTR, if they don’t wait too long. But many don’t manage and try to be a man by sleeping around or finding the elusive billionaire Alpha. Some even commit the error of becoming a single mother to a poor and exciting Alpha, but then being unable to let go of the luxuries they became accustomed to – so they continue “working as a model – being an escort” while her husband and child stays behind and does not know about it. That is only a reality among the models, who were not able to earn millions or are famous. There are many such shipwrecks in Dubai, Milan, Paris. Quite a few PUAs also report especially targeting models in New York or London and having slept with hundreds – those girls do not wait for Mr. Right, while they travel from ages 16-25.

    In any case what this has to do with the relevance of the commercial beats me. The production shows another feminist meme. And yes – more NAWALTs exist among the beautiful women, which does not change the usual destructive tendencies of promiscuity, drugs etc. which impact them easily. The model business is quite dirty – some model agencies even have escort agencies on the side pimping out their less successful girls. You won’t read about it in Vogue though. Trumping up the few super-successful women is just nuts – proves nothing.

  28. I definitely agree with the promiscuity… there are lots and lots of models (and you’re right, most do not become successful)… many of the successful ones are just “not like that” though. Again, there a lots of them out there (not merely a few that you seem to think) that get married young and start having babies in their 20’s – seems to be common in ones who aren’t American. I’m not trumping them up, just pointing out the fact that they’re there.

    Just look at some of the other comments on this… lots of women (& men actually) hate them just because of how they look. So seeing Doutzen Kroes having inner beauty too, really eats at these people – because it shows how arrogant they are in judging them so fast based on looks (or on a commercial that doesn’t actually resemble their life. It’s probably the same reason Looking Glass felt he needed to chime in about Gisele being different… well, he left out a few others that many would probably know from VS.

    And it definitely makes sense that PUA types would take advantage of promiscuity anywhere… they have no values/morals. Like seeks like.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s